Intel's enthusiast-grade Gulftown CPU previewed

By Jos · 12 replies
Aug 13, 2009
  1. Not long after sharing its 32nm processor plans with the press earlier this year, Intel revealed that it had begun shipping the first Westmere engineering samples to a select group of laptop and desktop PC manufacturers for testing. As it is often the case, one tech site seems to have gotten hold of these parts a little early and ran some quick benchmarks for us to look at.

    Read the whole story
  2. dustin_ds3000

    dustin_ds3000 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 887   +19

    WHOOOOO Intel FTW first consumer six-core processor
  3. 9Nails

    9Nails TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,215   +177

    "...a 32nm hexacore chip, known as Gulftown..." - Sweet!

    " holds 12MB of L3 cache..." - That's more in Cache than my first 3 computers had in system RAM!

    " expected price between $1,000 and $1,500..." - D'oh!
  4. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    1.1v!? ....holy hanna
  5. snowchick7669

    snowchick7669 TS Maniac Posts: 660

    Hanna is holy?
  6. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    well....she was before....i don't want to talk about it.
  7. snowchick7669

    snowchick7669 TS Maniac Posts: 660

    :stickout: Better behave and not hijack this thread
  8. peas

    peas TS Enthusiast Posts: 52

    nothing interesting here. move along.

    1st it was the MHz battle. That went to its logical conclusion (see Pentium 4 disaster).
    Now it's the cores battle. Keeping adding cores, the more there are, the more useless they are.
  9. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    to the Luddite in the 4th row

    a vast majority of games use two or three cores, in the near future they will use 4 , possibly more. check your productivity benchmarks and scores. they benefit greatly from four cores. as well as things like rendering, video editing, etc.
    servers are faster and more productive now from using 6 core processors.

    umm yeah competition hath wrought faster more capable and productive cpu's
    while you obviously embrace the ways of the Luddite, you may have noticed that they have had spectacular success since the Pentium 4. might i suggest an abacus?

    .....move along
  10. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 3,485   +45

    lol @ abacus. That's a 700+ year retrogress. All good points stated.
  11. I think now it's all about multi-core battle that NVIDIA already won :)
    Just think about having 512 cores on a chip working on a lower frequency instead of 6 cores working on higher frequency. Who knows and already saw the advantages of CUDA technology will understand what am I talking about.
  12. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,224   +164

    :haha:, your not serious are you??
    you have no idea what you are talking about.....thats a GPU, you know...a graphics card. this article is about a six core CPU. Geezus, do some reading.
  13. Archean

    Archean TechSpot Paladin Posts: 5,690   +96

    Yup red you are right, beside nvidia is only trying to get themselves in that position not sure in the long run they can; because I dont think nvidia has the financial muscle to sustain couple of tough years ...... whereas let alone Intel, AMD has proved that they can do just that by hanging on and continuously improving their products. I believe as soon as AMD and later on Intel (with larrabee) start producing chips with something like fusion (provided they can perform well) nvidia will be in deep s****. Anyways, its just a calculated guess thats about it.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...